perspectives - apa divisions · alized anxiety disorder in 2009 and for chronic musculoskeletal...

The Tablet Volume 12, Issue 2 July 2011

Th

e T

ab

let

Ed

ito

r:

Ja

me

s D

. C

alv

er

t, P

h.D

., M

SC

P

AM

ER

IC

AN

S

OC

IE

TY

F

OR

T

HE

A

DV

AN

CE

ME

NT

O

F

PH

AR

MA

CO

TH

ER

AP

Y

Volume 12, Issue 2

July 2011

In This Issue

Page

Clinicians’ Corner

Four “New” Antidepressants. Or Are They? Jim Phelps & Daniel Carlat

2

Low Dose Doxepine for Insomnia: Silenor® or Generic Noelle Bassi Smith & James D. Calvert

10

Perspectives

Vision for the Future—The Importance of Involvement Patrick Deleon

16

President’s Podium

Plan to Attend Division 55 Programs at the 2011 APA Convention Glenn Ally

21

Legislative Updates

A Long Legislative Session in Montana… Michael R. Butz

23

In Brief—New Jersey Sean R. Evers

27

From the Editors

Statistical Significance, Effect Size, and Clinical Rele-vance for RxP James D. Calvert, Editor

28

It’s Poison I Tell You, It’s Poison Nicholas Patapis, Associate Editor

30


Jim Phelps, M.D. Author, www.PsychEducation.org

Staff Psychiatrist, Samaritan Mental Health

Daniel Carlat, M.D. Associate Clinical Professor, Tufts University School of Medicine

What’s new in antidepressant treatment? Not much. Some existing antidepressants have

received new FDA indications. For example, duloxetine (Cymbalta) was approved for gener-

alized anxiety disorder in 2009 and for chronic musculoskeletal pain in 2010. Also in 2009,

quetiapine extended release (Seroquel XR) was approved as an adjunctive treatment for

major depression, joining aripiprazole (Abilify), which was approved for this indication in

2007. Other recent approvals have included escitalopram (Lexapro) for depression in ado-

lescents, and Symbyax, the combo of olanzapine and fluoxetine, for treatment resistant

depression.

In terms of “new” medications, in this article we will examine four recent additions. Two

are essentially old wines in new bottles (Oleptro and Silenor), one is a reissue of an MAOI

(Marplan), and one is actually a new molecule (Viibryd). You may have heard some buzz

about agomelatine as well, a unique melatonin agonist, but it is too far away from FDA ap-

proval (probably 2012 at the earliest) for us to cover it here.

Viibryd (vilazodone)

Vilazodone (Viibryd) was approved by the FDA in January of 2011, and should hit pharmacy

shelves around the time that you are reading this article. The manufacturer, Clinical Data, Inc, is marketing it

as “a new molecular entity” and “the first and only selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A recep-

Clinicians’ Corner

Four “New” Antidepressants. Or Are They?

Jim Phelps

Four “new” antidepressants. Or are they? was reprinted with permission from The Carlat Psychiatry Report, Daniel Carlat, April 2011. Volume 9, Issue 4. www.thecarlatreport.com


tor partial agonist.”

Is the drug effective? The company conducted two eight-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-

controlled studies of vilazodone at a dose of 40 mg/day. One of these studies was published (Rickels K et al, J

Clin Psychiatry 2009;70(3):326–333), while the other was posted on http://clinicaltrials.gov , along with less

detailed results. Both studies were standard clinical trials, with the usual exclusion criteria—ie, patients were

required to have at least moderate depression but no suicidal ideation, and they were excluded if they had

any other psychiatric conditions, with the exceptions of generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, and sim-

ple phobia. As usual, the devil is in the detail of the methodology of these studies, and these strict exclusion

criteria limit how generalized the results are to your patients, depending on the nature of your practice.

As you can see from the table, “Vilazodone vs Placebo for Major Depression,” vilazodone yielded sig-

nificantly more improvement in both depression symptom scores and response rates than placebo. These

numbers are similar to those posted by other FDA-approved antidepressants. Vilazodone appears to be an

effective antidepressant, though no more effective than any of its competitors, most of which are available

generically at a fraction of the cost.

(All differences were statistically significant)

So why would you choose to prescribe this new antidepressant? There are two potential reasons: 1.

The rumor that vilazodone has few sexual side effects; and 2. The idea that it has a unique mechanism of ac-

tion.

The low sexual side effect rumor is based

on the Rickels et al study. In that study, all en-

rolled patients were given the five item ASEX sex-

ual dysfunction scale, and after eight weeks,

there was no difference between placebo and

Vilazodone vs Placebo for Major Depression

STUDY Improvement in MADRS Score MADRS Response Rate

Clinical Trial NCT00683592 (http://bit.ly/hOheGg)

Vilazodone (n=231) -13.3 43.7%

Placebo (n=231) -10.8 30.3%

J Clin Psych study (Rickels ibid)

Vilazodone (n=205) -12.9 40.4%

Placebo (n=205) -9.6 28.1%

The only conclusion to be drawn is that

neither vilazodone nor placebo made

preexisting sexual problems any worse

http://clinicaltrials.gov/


vilazodone in changes in the score. Unfortunately, these data mean little, because most patients who en-

tered the vilazodone trials already had sexual dysfunction (perhaps caused by the depression itself or other

factors). Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn is that neither vilazodone nor placebo made preexisting

sexual problems any worse.

To understand how uninformative this study was regarding sexual side effects, let’s take a peak at a

similarly designed study of two antidepressants that are well known to cause sexual dysfunction: paroxetine

(Paxil) and escitalopram (Lexapro). In an eight week randomized controlled trial comparing these two drugs,

the average patient began the study with a high ASEX score of 20 (the higher the score, the worse the sex).

After eight weeks, the ASEX scores increased only slightly over baseline, and after 27 weeks, they actually

decreased. This study did not prove that these drugs are sexually inert, it simply showed that there is a ceil-

ing effect—at a certain level of decreased libido, nothing is going to make it any worse (Baldwin DS et al, Int

Clin Psychopharmacol 2006;21(3):159–169).

Of course, the obvious way to find out if a drug causes a side effect is to prescribe it to patients who

don’t already have the side effect in question. This is the method used in the various studies showing that

bupropion (Wellbutrin) is sexually cleaner than SSRIs. These studies enrolled only depressed patients without

sexual dysfunction, randomized them to buproprion vs sertraline (Zoloft) or escitalopram, and reassessed

them several weeks later. Using this methodology, bupropion vastly “outsexed” both sertraline (Segraves R

et al, J Clin Psychopharm 2000;20(2):122–128) and escitalopram (Clayton AH et al, J Clin Psychiatry 2007;67

(5):736–746).

The FDA agrees with our skepticism. In an email to The Carlat Psychiatry Report, Dr. Thomas Laugh-

ren, who is the director of psychiatric products at the FDA, described for us the standards the FDA requires

for antidepressant makers to claim their products do not cause sexual dysfunction—and he assured us that

“vilazodone has not met that standard.” Clinical Data has been officially barred by the FDA from touting vi-

lazodone as a low sexual side effect antidepressant.

The other potential selling point of vilazodone is that it is the “one and only” antidepressant with the

following dual mechanism of action: it is both an SSRI (ie, it is an antagonist) and a “5-HT1A partial agonist”

which is neurotransmitter- speak for buspirone (BuSpar), the only commonly used 5-HT1A partial agonist on

the market. The implication is that vilazodone is sort of like combining an SSRI and buspirone in one pill, with

the putative benefits of an augmented antidepressant response and an anti-anxiety effect. This is all theo-

retical, of course, since there are no data showing that vilazodone is better than any other antidepressant for

According to Dr. Laughren of the FDA, vilazodone has not met the standard required in order to make claims that it does not cause sexual dysfunction


either anxiety or depression. We eagerly (but, suspect, futilely) await results of such future head-to-head tri-

als!

The Carlat Psychiatry Report’s Verdict: Vilazodone: Effective, but be wary of low side effect claims.

Oleptro (trazodone extended-release)

Oleptro is an extended release formulation of trazodone (Desyrel). While we have come to think of

trazodone as a non-addictive sleeping pill at doses ranging from 25 mg to 150 mg at night, the pill’s only ac-

tual indication is for the treatment of major depression, which it received approval for decades ago. Of

course, we rarely use it for depression, because the doses required (300 mg to 400 mg, in divided doses, ac-

cording to the prescribing information) would cause our patients too much sedation to make it worth using.

Which brings us to the question of why Labopharm, Oleptro’s maker, would think that a branded, ex-

pensive, extended release version of trazodone would find a place in our quiver of drugs? In other words,

why would one want to experience the side effects of trazodone all day, instead of confining them to an

overnight period in which one is hopefully asleep? Labopharm USA’s chief medical officer Jeff Dayno, MD,

explained to TCPR that by spreading release over a 24-hour period, they hoped to decrease the sedation and

allow for delivery of antidepressant dosages.

So what do the Oleptro clinical trials show? Thus far, only one randomized trial has been published

(Sheehan DV et al, Psychiatry (Edgmont) 2009;6(5):20–33), and no others are listed as being in progress at

http://clinicaltrials.gov. In this trial, 406 depressed outpatients were randomized to active drug or placebo.

Exclusion criteria were similar to the vilazodone studies described previously, so generalizability to standard

clinic patients is problematic. Titration began at 150 mg nightly, increasing every three to four days by 75 mg,

up to a maximum of 375mg.

Viibryd—At a Glance

Generic name Vilazodone

Manufacturer Clinical Data, Inc

Approval date January 21, 2011

Approval indication Major depressive disorder

Available in pharmacies Sometime between April and June 2011

Dosages available 10 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg tablets

Target dose 40 mg once a day

Average cost No cost information yet

Likely marketing points Lower side effects, new mechanism of action

Advantages over existing antidepressants Probably none


How did patients in this study fare? Oleptro outperformed placebo: starting from a baseline HAM-D-

17 score of 23, Oleptro patients’ scores decreased by 11 points, versus a nine point drop for placebo. How

much of a difference is two points? Big enough to be statistically significant (P=0.012)—but is this clinically

significant?

The effect size in the Oleptro study was 0.28 (not presented in the report but confirmed with Labo-

pharm by email). A two point difference in the HAM-D scale is considered by some researchers to be clinical-

ly meaningful (for example, a 1.7 to 1.9 point change in HAM-D was defined as clinically meaningful in one

review—Khan A et al, Neuropsychopharmacol 2003;28(3):552–557). But other researchers, as well as Brit-

ain’s National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE), have adopted a three-point difference on the HAM-D

as the threshold for clinical significance. Therefore, depending on your definition of “significant,” Oleptro

may or may not be a useful antidepressant.

How was the drug tolerated? Daytime somnolence was the main problem, affecting 31% of the Olep-

tro group versus 16% of the placebo group. Other significant side effects were dizziness and nausea, occur-

ring at roughly twice the rate of placebo. While sexual dysfunction was not thoroughly assessed, long experi-

ence with trazodone suggests that this will not be a major problem.

Interestingly, a recent small trial endorsed trazodone as potential treatment for sexual dysfunction

associated with SSRIs (Stryjer R, Clin Neuropharmacol 2009;32(2):82–84). But this was only a small open trial

(15 patients); the power of suggestion may have been the active ingredient, not the 5-HT2 antagonism about

which the authors speculate.

So—is Oleptro worth using as an antidepressant? In patients who cannot tolerate the sexual dysfunc-

tion from most other antidepressants, and who don’t become overly sedated, Oleptro may have a place—

but at about $150 for a month’s supply, insurance companies will be reluctant to foot the bill.

Is Oleptro useful as an antidepressant? It depends on if you believe a 2-point difference between Oleptro and placebo on the HAM-D is clinically significant


TCPR’s Verdict: Oleptro: For most patients, not enough efficacy to justify side effects and cost, but necessary

head-to-head studies with existing antidepressants are lacking.

Silenor (doxepin)

Silenor is a branded version of doxepin, a tricyclic antidepressant that has been available in the U.S.

since the 1960s or so. Doxepin is the generic name, and it is also sold by Pfizer under the brand name of Si-

nequan. Doxepin is such an old drug that one of its current official FDA indications is: “Psychoneurotic pa-

tients with depression and/or anxiety.”

Like other tricyclics, doxepin blocks the reuptake of norepinephrine, but it is also a very potent anti-

histamine, meaning that one of its main side effects is sedation. Accordingly, over the years doxepin has be-

come a favorite non-addictive insomnia medication, usually used in very low doses (it comes as low as 10

mg).

The drug company Somaxon patented a technique for packaging generic doxepin into even smaller

dosages (1 mg, 3 mg, and 6 mg), and did clinical trials showing that these work better than placebo for sleep

maintenance (for example, see Scharf M et al, J Clin Psychiatry 2008;69(10):1557–1564). On the basis of the-

se trials, they now have an FDA indication for insomnia at the 3 mg and 6 mg doses.

There’s not too much more that’s worth saying about Si-

lenor. It would be hard to imagine a patient for whom 3 mg or 6

mg of Silenor will pose an advantage over 10 mg of generic dox-

Oleptro—At a Glance

Generic name Trazodone extended-release

Manufacturer Labopharm

Approval date February 22, 2010


Available in pharmacies Available now

Dosages available 150 mg, 300 mg scored tablets

Target dose 150 mg to 375 mg per day

Average cost $142 to $170 for a month’s supply at the target dose range. Generic immediate release trazodone 100 mg costs $4/ month at Walmart pharmacies

Likely marketing points No sexual dysfunction or weight gai

Advantages/disadvantages

Probably won’t cause sexual side effects, but may be too sedating

See the following article on using low-dose doxepin for insomnia for further discus-sion of Silenor versus generic


epin. True, doxepin can cause a range of anticholinergic side effects, but recall that the standard doxepin

dose for depression is from 75 mg/day to 150 mg/day. Given that scale, a 5 mg difference would seem un-

likely to yield significantly more or less side effects. Of course, Somaxon could have answered this question

scientifically in their clinical trials if they had randomized some of their patients to generic doxepin 10 mg.

Presumably they chose not to do so because they were afraid of what they would find. A month’s supply of

Silenor at 3 mg or 6 mg costs $214, according to Boston area pharmacies we contacted. On the other hand, a

month’s supply of doxepin 10 mg costs $4 at Walmart. The rare patients who cannot tolerate 10 mg of dox-

epin can reduce the dose by opening up the capsules and mixing some of the powder in juice. The generic

also comes in a 10 mg/ml liquid dose.

TCPR’s Verdict: Silenor: Just as good as the generic, and 50 times the price!

Marplan (isocarboxazid)

A “new” monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI)? Well, not

really. Isocarboxazid has been around since 1959. It disap-

peared in 1994 when the FDA called for updated data to

maintain an indication. Its manufacturer, Hoffman Laroche, chose not to continue it, according to an inter-

esting account in a voicemail response to TCPR from James Hunter, president of its new marketer, Validus

Pharmaceutical. Apparently Validus spotted a commercial opportunity in reissuing Marplan as a branded

drug. (According to several pharmacies contacted by TCPR, isocarboxazid is not available as a generic at this

point.) The price for a 10 mg tablet averages more than $3 per pill, and given a target dose of 40 mg/day, the

monthly cost could be well over $300.

Silenor—At a Glance

Generic name Doxepin

Manufacturer Somaxon Pharmaceuticals

Approval date March 17, 2010

Approval indication Sleep maintenance insomnia


Dosages available 3 mg, 6 mg tablets

Target dose 3 mg or 6 mg at bedtime

Average cost $214 for a month’s supply at either dose. Compare that to doxepin, any dose from 10 mg/day to 100 mg/day, which is $4/month, according to the Walmart list

Likely marketing points Non-addictive insomnia treatment, few side effects

Advantages/disadvantages

Essentially the same as generic doxepin 10 mg, except much pricier

Marplan (isocarboxazid) is being reissued as a branded drug


Is isocarboxazid more effective than phenelzine (Nardil) or tranylcypromine (Parnate), the available

generic MAOIs? Apparently not. The last comprehensive review was published 15 years ago and concluded

that isocarboxazid is as effective as its competitors for outpatients, but may be ineffective for inpatients

(Thase et al, Neuropsychopharmacol 1995;12(3):185–219). Unfortunately, because of the lack of availability

of this medication for the last decade, no more recent comparative data are available.

Are you one of the 2% of psychiatrists who actually use MAOIs regularly (Balon et al, Psychiatr Serv

1999;50(7):945–947)? If not, whichever MAOI you choose, you’ll need a handy list of foods and medications

to avoid. You can download one from the TCPR website at http://bit.ly/eNyoyl or read it in TCPR, November

2006.

TCPR’s Verdict: Marplan: A welcome reissue, but expensive.

Marplan—At a Glance

Brand name Isocarboxazid

Manufacturer Validus Pharmaceuticals

Approval date Originally: July 1, 1959; most recent label revision approved on August 10, 2007



Dosages available 10 mg tablet

Target dose 40 mg/day

Average cost About $440 for a month’s supply at 40 mg/day. Compare that to phenelzine 45 mg/day, which is about $80/month; and tranylcypromine, 30 mg/day, which is about $100/ month

Likely marketing points Robust antidepressant

Advantages over existing antide-pressants

Possibly more effective than non-MAOIs, especially for atypical depression

Expensive medicines are always good—if not for the patient, at least for the druggist — Russian Proverb


Noelle Bassi Smith Graduate Student in Clinical Psychology

Southern Methodist University

James D. Calvert, Ph.D., MSCP Lecturer, Southern Methodist University

President, Calvert Partners, PLLC

The treatment of insomnia warrants special attention as it is extremely prevalent in the

population and can cause significant disruptions in everyday functioning. One year preva-

lence estimates reveal that roughly 30-45% of adults endorsed complaints of insomnia

(American Psychiatric Association; APA, 2000). Approximately 10% of adults and 25% of

elderly suffer from chronic insomnia and an additional 30% of the population suffers from

transient insomnia (Doghramji, 2007).

Research suggests that low dose doxepin may be helpful in treating chronic and transient insomnia in

both adults and elderly. Reviews of low dose doxepin indicate that it is efficacious in improving sleep

maintenance, including wake time after sleep onset, total sleep time, and sleep efficiency, calculated using

the total time spent sleeping and the total time spent in bed (Weber et al., 2010), with no evidence of chang-

es to sleep architecture, tolerance, withdrawal or discontinuation symptoms or rebound insomnia (Lankford,

2010).

Doxepin is a tricyclic antidepressant that recently received approval from the U.S. Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) for transient and chronic insomnia in adults and the elderly. Pre-

viously, higher doses of doxepin (150-300 milligrams) were prescribed to treat depression

and anxiety, but dosage levels used to treat depression and anxiety can have significant anti-

cholinergic side effects such as blurred vision, confusion, constipation, dry mouth and uri-

nary retention. In higher dose ranges, other side effects include dizziness, drowsiness, nau-

sea, and changes in appetite. The significant and often intolerable side effect profile com-

bined with better alternatives in mood and anxiety treatment is largely why the use of high-

er doses of doxepin has declined. However, in significantly lower dose ranges (1-6 mg), doxepin appears to

be efficacious in the treatment of insomnia characterized by difficulty with sleep maintenance.

At high doses, doxepin has properties of inhibiting reuptake of serotonin and norepinephrine, as well

Low Dose Doxepin for Insomnia: Silenor® or Generic?

Noelle Smith

Jim Calvert


as being an antogonist at histamine, alpha adrenergic and muscarinic receptor sites (Stahl, 2008). Yet at low-

er doses, the mechanism appears to be much more limited and specific. Doxepin is unlike other psychiatric

medications because it works selectively on H1 (histamine) receptors at very low doses. Histamine plays an

important role in wakefulness, and selective antagonism at the H1 receptor has been associated with se-

dating properties (Lankford, 2011) and is closely linked to the initiation and maintenance of sleep (Weber,

Siddiqui, Wagstaff, & McCormack, 2010). When histamine acts on the H1 receptors, it activates a chain of

events that results in wakefulness and pro-cognitive alertness (Stahl, 2008). In the presence of an H1 antago-

nist, such as doxepin, the chain of events is altered re-

sulting in sedation, drowsiness, sleep or more general-

ly the interference of wakefulness-promoting actions.

The highly selective and specific binding properties of

doxepin with histamine H1 receptors are the hypothe-

sized mechanisms underlying why doxepin helps to treat insomnia, as well as the reason why there are so

few side effects to low-dose doxepin. Selective H1 antagonism does not interfere with other neurotrans-

mitters and the natural release of histamine upon awakening overrides the residual effects (Lankford, 2011).

In addition to the highly selective and potent nature of doxepin for the H1 receptor, changes in corti-

sol levels are also a hypothesized mechanism behind the efficacy in reducing insomnia and sleep difficulties.

Compared to a placebo, intravenous and oral applications of 25 mg of doxepin significantly improved sleep

and reduced mean cortisol levels. The inactive period of cortisol rhythm was prolonged following the admin-

istration of 25 mg of doxepin, suggesting that the sleep-improving effects may be partially explained by the

normalization of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis (Rodenbeck et al., 2003).

Using a crossover design, Roth and colleagues (2007) examined the efficacy of 1 mg, 3 mg, and 6mg

doses of doxepin in adults with chronic primary insomnia. All three doses of doxepin were significantly

better than the placebo on at least some measures of sleep initiation and maintenance. While all three dos-

es of doxepin appeared to be helpful in improving sleep efficiency throughout the entire night, the results

suggest low dose doxepin may be particularly helpful for sleep maintenance during the final third of the

night. On the primary outcome measure, wake time during sleep, only 3 mg and 6 mg doses of doxepin were

significantly better than placebo. On measures of residual sedation, such as psychomotor functioning and

next-day alertness, there were no differences between any of the doses of doxepin and placebo. Additional-

ly, there were no differences in the incidences of adverse effects. Headaches and somnolence were the two

most commonly reported adverse events. Overall, the results support the efficacy and safety of low dose

doxepin, particularly 3 mg and 6 mg doses, in the treatment of insomnia in adult populations. Scharf and col-

leagues (2008) found very similar results with

elderly patients.

At very low doses, doxepin is highly se-lective for H1 receptors

1 mg, 3 mg, and 6 mg doxepin help with sleep initiation and maintenance


Given the higher prevalence of insomnia in elderly, efficacy, safety, and tolerability with this popula-

tion is particularly important. Krystal and colleagues (2010) conducted a longer 12-week trial and examined

the effects of 1 mg and 3 mg doses of doxepin in elderly individuals using patient reports, clinician ratings,

and objective measures obtained through polysomnography. Although 1 mg of doxepin improved a limited

number of outcome measures at several time points, 3 mg of doxepin significantly approved a greater num-

ber and range of sleep parameters and revealed sustained effects. The 3mg dose of doxepin was significantly

better than placebo on objective measures, such as wake time after sleep onset, total sleep time, and sleep

efficiency. Additionally, 3 mg of doxepin was also associated with significant improvements in subjective effi-

cacy data, meaning the patient’s self-reported sleep mirrored objective outcomes. Clinical and patient global

impressions were also significantly improved suggesting the changes were noticeable by the individuals and

clinicians, and that there were improvements in the overall functioning of the individuals suffering from in-

somnia. Notably, incidences of side effects were low; there were no significant carryover effects or next-day

residual symptoms, nor were there reports of memory impairment, weight gain or significant anticholinergic

effects. The 12-week trial also provides support for the long term use of low dose doxepin in elderly popula-

tions.

In transient insomnia, lasting between a single night and a few weeks, 6 mg of doxepin appears to

alleviate sleep difficulties as well. Compared to individuals receiving a placebo, individuals administered 6

mg tablets of doxepin demonstrated improved sleep onset, as defined by a reduction in the time between

lights out and persistent sleep. Sleep maintenance, sleep duration, and sleep quality were also significantly

better than the placebo condition on both objective and subjective measures. Doxepin appeared to reduce

early morning awakenings and did not consistently reveal any carryover sedation on the next day, which sug-

gests the effectiveness and tolerability of doxepin in adults with transient insomnia (Roth et al., 2010).

Other medications besides doxepin have generally been considered to be first line treatments for

insomnia (Lankford, 2011; Pinto et al., 2010). Popular medication choices for insomnia include non-

benzodiazepine options such as zolpidem (Ambien CR®) and eszopiclone (Lunesta®). A recent meta-analysis

by Buscemi and colleagues (2007) examined the efficacy and safety of insomnia drug treatments using ben-

zodiazepines, non-benzodiazepines, and anti-depressants, including four studies with doxepin. The meta-

analysis revealed that benzodiazepines, non-benzodiazepines, and antidepressants significantly decreased

sleep onset latency as defined by the amount of time between going to bed and falling asleep, in both self-

report and polysomnography. Benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines were significantly better than pla-

cebos on measures of wakefulness after sleep onset, sleep efficiency, total sleep time, and sleep quality. For

Given the high prevalence of insomnia among the elderly, finding a safe, effective, and tolerable medication is especially important for this population


antidepressants, results from the polysomnography revealed significant differences from the placebo, but

there were only a small number of sleep diaries on which to base the comparison of subjective reports.

Benzodiazepines, non-benzodiazepines, and antidepressants were not significantly different from each other,

except that non-benzodiazepines were more efficacious than antidepressants on sleep onset latency using

polysomnography. Unfortunately, the meta-analysis included studies examining doxepin in the 25 mg to 50

mg dose range, so the interpretations of the findings are limited, especially because newer research indicates

that it is very low dosages of doxepin (1-6 mg) that appear to be most helpful because of the selectivity for

H1 receptors at very low dose ranges.

Low dose doxepin provides several advantages over other pharmacological possibilities. Most im-

portantly, it appears to be safe and tolerable for individuals, including the elderly. It has been shown to be

efficacious on a number of sleep parameters measured by polysomnography, patient report, and clinician

report. Because it is not a controlled substance, there is a

low potential for abuse. Studies suggest it is acceptable for

long term use, and there are no restrictions on duration of

use or evidence of tolerance with prolonged usage. With the

conceptualization that insomnia must be treated chronically

(Stahl, 2008), the safety and efficacy over long term use of

doxepin is especially appealing. If discontinued, there are no signs of physical withdrawal symptoms or re-

bound insomnia. Once daily 3 mg or 6 mg oral dose within thirty minutes of bedtime is well tolerated with

the most frequent side effects being somnolence, headaches and grogginess (Weber, Siddiqui, Wagstaff, &

McCormack, 2010), although these side effects were not reported at rates higher than placebo for all studies

(e.g., Roth et al, 2007). Significant and potentially intolerable side effects such as weight gain or psychomo-

tor impairment were not exhibited in trials with low dose doxepin.

As discussed, low dose doxepin offers a number of elements that are advantageous in general, but

particularly for elderly populations. Due to the highly specific affinity for histamine H1 receptors, there are

very few drug interactions, although low dose doxepin should not be taken in conjunction with monoamine

oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs; Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, 2010; USFDA, 2010). Low dose doxepin also offers

sustained control of symptoms and patient-reported improvements in sleep quality (Weber et al., 2010). Ad-

ditionally, as elderly individuals may be especially susceptible to some side effects, it is particularly notewor-

thy that low dose doxepin was not associated with anticholinergic side effects or memory impairments.

In March 2010, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Silenor® (manufactured by Somaxon

Pharmeuceticals) for the treatment of insomnia characterized by difficulty of sleep maintenance (Somaxon

Pharmeuceticals. 2010; USFDA, 2010). Silenor® is a low dose of doxepin that comes in 3 mg and 6 mg oral

tablets. Somaxon Pharmaceuticals pointed out in their press release that Silenor® is advantageous as it al-

Low dose doxepin appears to be safe and effective for adults, in-cluding the elderly


lows for specifically measured and controlled dosing of doxepin. Silenor® provides a convenient and con-

trolled option for ensuring that the individuals receive the intended dose (Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, 2010).

Prior to March 2010, the lowest dose of doxepin was 10 mg in either capsule or oral suspension form. Either

the capsule or oral suspension can be divided into smaller doses to approximate the 3-6 milligram range that

appears to be within the therapeutic window for transient and chronic insomnia.

The approval of Silenor® aroused concern from many (e.g., Phelps & Carlat, 2011; Carlat, 2011; Krohn,

2010) since it was essentially taking an older generic drug that has been used for many years as oan off-label

treatment for insomnia and making it available as an expensive brand name medication by repackaging it in

3 mg and 6 mg tablets. Indeed, the only difference between generic doxepin and Silenor® is that Silenor® is

available in 3 mg and 6 mg tablets, while generic doxepin is only available with the lowest dosage of 10 mg.

The research indicates that 3 mg and 6 mg dosages work well without significant side effects. The concern is

that as dosages are increased, the likelihood of side effects also increases. However, it appears that splitting

the dosage of generic doxepin places the dosage within the 3-6 mg range that has been shown to be effec-

tive in the treatment of insomnia.

When making a decision between Silenor® and generic forms of low dose doxepin, it appears to come

down to cost versus exact dosing. Online drug prices show that generic doxepin costs less than 20 cents per

10 mg capsule as compared to $5.50-$6.50 per 3 mg tablet for Silenor®. These costs may vary depending on

insurance benefits. Splitting the 10 mg dose of generic doxepin is not as exact as taking a 3 mg or 6 mg tab-

let, but it appears that dosages in the 3-6 mg range are safe and effective, so exact dosing may not be neces-

sary. As Carlat (2011; also reprinted in the current issue of The Tablet) points out, there appears to be little

advantage to Silenor® given the ease of dividing generic doxepin dosages. Since there will be some small var-

iation in dosage whenever medication is divided by patients, future research comparing 3 mg and 6 mg Si-

lenor® with patient-divided generic doxepin capsules would outline advantages, if any, for prescribing Si-

lenor® instead of the more cost-effective generic doxepin.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edi-tion, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Buscemi, N., Vandermeer, B., Friesen, C., Bialy, L., Tubman, M., Ospina, M…Witmans, M. (2007). The efficacy

But is Silenor® any more effective than generic doxepin?

There is no evidence that Silenor® is more effective than generic doxepin


and safety of drug treatments for chronic insomnia in adults: A meta-analysis of RCTs. Journal of Gen-eral Internal Medicine, 22, 1335-1350.

Carlat, D. (2011, March 30). Somaxon’s Silenor: A case study in sleeping pill deception. The CArlat Psychiatry Blog. Retrieved from http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2011/03/somaxons-silenor-case-study-in-sleeping.html

Doghramji, K. (2006). The epidemiology and diagnosis of insomnia. American Journal of Managed Care, 12, S214-220.

Krohn, N. (2010, June 24). The problem with Somaxon’s Silenor. Seeking Alpha. Retrieved from http://seekingalpha.com/article/211686-the-problem-with-somaxon-s-silenor

Krystal, A.D., Durrence, H.H., Scharf, M., Jochelson, P., Rogowski, R., Ludington, E., & Roth,T. (2010). Efficacy and safety of doxepin 1 mg and 3 mg in a 12-week sleep laboratory and outpatient trial of elderly sub-jects with chronic primary insomnia. Sleep, 33, 1553-1561.

Lankford, A. (2011). Low-dose doxepin (3 and 6 mg) for the treatment of insomnia. Future Neurology, 6, 143-154.

Phelps, J., & Carlat, D. (2011, April). Four new antidepressants – Or are they? The Carlat Psychiatry Report, 9(4).

Pinto, L.R., Alves, R.C., Caixeta, E., Fontenelle, J.A., Bacellar, A., Poyares, D.,…Tavares, S. (2010). New guide-lines for diagnosis and treatment of insomnia. Arq Neuropsiquiatr, 68, 666-675.

Rodenbeck, A., Cohrs, S., Jordan, W., Huether, G., Rüuther, E., & Hajak, G. (2003). The sleep-improving effects of doxepin are paralleled by a normalized plasma cortisol secretion in primary insomnia. Psy-chopharmacology,170, 423-428.

Roth, T., Durrence, H.H., Jochelson, P., Peterson, G., Ludington, E., Rogowski, R.,…Lankford, A. (2010). Efficacy and safety of doxepin 6 mg in a model of transient insomnia. Sleep Medicine, 11, 843-847.

Roth, T., Rogowski, R., Hull, S., Schwartz, H., Koshorek, G., Corser, B.,… Lankford, A. (2007). Efficacy and safe-ty of doxepin 1 mg, 3 mg, 6 mg in adults with primary insomnia. Sleep, 30, 1555-1561.

Scharf, M., Rogowski, R., Hull, S., Cohn, M., Mayleben, D., Feldman, N., Ereshefsky, L., Lankford, A., & Roth, T. (2008). Efficacy and safety of doxepin 1 mg, 3 mg, and 6 mg in elderly patients with primary insom-nia: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69(10), 1557-1564.

Somaxon announces FDA approval of Silenor (doxepin) for the treatment of insomnia. (2010, March). So-maxon Pharmeceuticals. Retrieved from http://www.somaxon.com/media/pdf/pres2010/somaxon-silenor-FDA-approval-release.pdf.

Stahl, S.M. (2008). Stahl’s Essential psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific basis and practical applications, Third Edition. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.

United States Food and Drug Administration. (2010, March). Silenor medication guide. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/drugsafety/UCM206668.pdf.

Weber, J., Siddiqui, A.A., Wagstaff, A.J., & McCormack, P.L. (2010). Low-dose doxepin in the treatment of in-somnia. CNS Drugs,24, 713-720.

http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2011/03/somaxons-silenor-case-study-in-sleeping.html

http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2011/03/somaxons-silenor-case-study-in-sleeping.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/211686-the-problem-with-somaxon-s-silenor

http://seekingalpha.com/article/211686-the-problem-with-somaxon-s-silenor


Patrick Deleon, Ph.D., J.D., M.P.H., ABPP

former APA President – Division 55

The Department of Health and Human Services: In presenting her Fiscal Year 2012 budg-

et, Secretary Sebelius (HHS) expressed her enthusiasm for effectively implementing Presi-

dent Obama’s landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in a timely

fashion. “In President Obama’s State of the Union address he outlined his vision for how

the United States can win the future by out-educating, out-building and out-innovating the

world so that we give every family and business the chance to thrive. His 2012 budget is

the blueprint for putting that vision into action and making the investments that will grow

our economy and create jobs. At the Department of Health and Human Services *HHS+ this

means giving families and business owners better access to health care and more freedom

from rising health costs and insurance abuses. It means keeping America at the cutting edge of new cures,

treatments and health information technology. It means helping our children get a healthy start in life and

preparing them for academic success. It means promoting prevention and wellness to make it easier for

families to make healthy choices. It means building a health care workforce that is ready for the 21st century

health needs of our country. And it means attacking waste and fraud throughout our department to increase

efficiency, transparency and accountability. Our 2010 budget does all of this.”

Visionary health psychologist Susan McDaniel and APA Executive Officer Norm Anderson have long

been urging our colleagues to become more personally involved in educating society’s leaders and the public

regarding the importance of the psychosocial-economic-cultural gradient of quality health care, as well as

the increasingly emerging scientific and clinical evidence supporting the critical nature of the social determi-

nants of health. The Secretary clearly has a similar vision. Her budget redirects and increases funding within

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) targeted towards reducing chronic disease. Rather

than splitting funding and making separate grants for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases, she

has proposed one comprehensive grant that will allow States to address chronic disease more effectively.

Perspectives

VISION FOR THE FUTURE – THE IMPORTANCE OF

INVOLVEMENT

Pat Deleon


Similarly, the prevention resources within SAMHSA would be redirected to fund evidence-based interven-

tions and better respond to evolving needs. States and local communities would benefit from the additional

flexibility while funds would still be competed and directed toward proven interventions.

We would rhetorically ask: How many of our colleagues

who are primarily in private practice share Division Presi-

dent Glenn Ally’s vision and have developed collaborative

relationships with their local state or county health authori-

ties? Glenn, along with two other medical psychologists,

works closely with his local Community Mental Health Center; other Louisiana medical psychologists in pri-

vate practice work with their Children’s and State Psychiatric Hospitals, not to mention serving on numerous

State Boards and Committees/Commissions. It is only by becoming active community participants and vi-

sionary leaders that psychology will ultimately be well positioned to effectively engage in the policy discus-

sions that determine local plans for implementation of PPACA on a collegial and equal basis with other health

care disciplines, interested stakeholders, and government and business community leaders. The President’s

vision provides the Administration and States with considerable flexibility to develop local strategies for suc-

cessfully meeting broad-reaching national objectives. As Jim Quillin keeps reminding us, “All politics are lo-

cal.”

The HHS Secretary further pointed out

that PPACA expands access to affordable cover-

age to millions of Americans and strengthens

consumer protections to ensure individuals have

coverage when they most need it. Focusing upon

ensuring access to quality, culturally competent

care for vulnerable populations: “The budget in-

cludes $3.3 billion for the Health Centers Program, including $1.2 billion in mandatory funding provided

through the Affordable Care Act Community Health Center Fund, to expand the capacity of existing health

center services and create new access points…. (This) will enable health centers to serve 900,000 new pa-

tients and increase access to medical, oral, and behavioral health services to a total of 24 million patients.”

Her Innovation Center, in coordination with private sector partners wherever possible, will pursue new ap-

proaches that not only will improve quality of care, but also lead to cost savings for Medicare, Medicaid, and

CHIP. We suspect that very few of our colleagues truly appreciate the long term implications for their daily

practices of the PPACA established Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute which will be funding re-

search and getting relevant, high quality information to patients, clinicians, and policy-makers, so that they

can make informed health care decisions. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimates that almost 40% of

Americans possess only “basic” or “below-basic” health literacy skills. Thus, their ability to make informed

Who among us has developed col-laborative relationships with local and state health authorities?

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute will fund outcome research with patients, clinicians, and policy-makers to help Americans make informed health de-cisions


decisions without concerted assistance will become increasingly difficult as the volume and complexity of

data available to them increases. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund will fund this inde-

pendent Institute and related HHS activities. Approximately $620 million will be allocated during the coming

year as investments in core patient-centered health research activities and to disseminate research findings,

train the next generation of patient-centered outcome researchers, and improve data capacity.

The HHS budget also includes $78 million for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Infor-

mation Technology to accelerate health information technology (HIT) adoption and promote electronic

health records (EHRs) as tools to improve the health of individuals and transform the health care system.

One focus will be assisting health care providers in becoming meaningful users of health information technol-

ogy. One of the Secretary’s priorities should be of particular interest to APA. Her budget provides HRSA with

$163 million for Health Workforce Diversity programs to improve the diversity of the nation’s health work-

force and improve care to vulnerable populations. These funds will support training programs and scholar-

ship opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are enrolled in health professions and

nursing programs.

The Department of Defense: “As this year’s Military Nurse Fellow, I was thrilled to attend the Senate

Committee on Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing on the DoD Fiscal Year 2012 Health Programs.

During this hearing, Senators heard testimony from the Nurse Corps Chiefs and the Surgeons General from

the Army, Air Force, and the Navy. Not at all surprising was a universal concern voiced by the Senators re-

garding the behavioral health of our troops and their families. The Surgeons General and the Nurse Corps

Chiefs all mentioned during their testimony that preserving the psychological health of service members and

their families is one of the greatest challenges the services face today. The military is not immune to mental

health issues or concerns; behavioral health issues affect military members and their families just as they

affect the civilian community, perhaps even more so.

“Tragically, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have produced a group of combat veterans who face a

lifelong struggle to cope with the severe physical and psychological traumas of war. The invisible scars of

war cut deep and transcend through military members to their families who are desperately trying to assist

their loved ones to cope. The military health system as a whole strives to provide the very best ongoing

healthcare for military members and their families including mental health services and support. It is clear

that early identification of mental health risks through surveillance, education, and training is a key compo-

“Programs that support, prevent, diagnose, mitigate, and treat behavioral health issues are paramount to ensuring the optimal health of our com-munities, whether civilian or military.” - 2010 Military Nurse Fellow Lt. Col. Maureen Charles, USAF


nent in helping to mitigate behavioral health and stress related issues. The Army has developed an approach

to strengthen their soldiers’ and families’ behavioral health and emotional resiliency through a campaign to

align various behavioral health programs. The long term goals of this Comprehensive Behavioral Health Sys-

tem of Care is to protect and restore the psychological health of soldiers and their families and prevent ad-

verse psychological and social outcomes like family violence, DUIs, drug and alcohol addiction, and suicide.

“Citing that no one is immune to the stresses and strains of life, the Air Force testimony identified

that one important aspect of patient-centered preventive care includes preserving the mental health and

well-being of service members and improving their resilience. Initiatives have been developed to support

and train front line supervisors to recognize when an individual may be having difficulties. Counseling ser-

vices have also been expanded beyond traditional avenues. Other initiatives aimed at addressing behavioral

health and resiliency included utilizing a targeted approach that recognizes different risk groups. An over-

arching theme identified was the utilization of ‘best practice’ programs to help service members become

more resilient. An example of this is teaching the afflicted to realize that seeking help is a sign of strength,

not a sign of weakness.

“The Navy keyed in on the fact that service members and their families are usually mentally and emo-

tionally strong at baseline, but the long conflict (war) and other related deployment challenge this resilience.

Thus, the Navy implemented programs for early detection of stress injuries, which includes focusing on lead-

ership’s role in monitoring the health of their people. Additionally, the programs include providing leaders

with tools they may employ when service members are experiencing mild to moderate symptoms and the

utilization of multidisciplinary expertise for members more seriously affected.

“It is evident from the testimony that psychological health issues cut across all walks of life. Programs

that support, prevent, diagnose, mitigate, and treat behavioral health issues are paramount to ensuring the

optimal health of our communities, whether civilian or military. The services are working hard to change the

‘culture’ and are striving to ensure military members are a healthy, fit and resilient force!” (Lt. Col. Maureen

Charles, USAF).

The Department of Agriculture: The U.S. Department of Agri-

culture recently announced a $25 million grant to the College of Agri-

culture at the University of Hawaii in order to develop obesity preven-

tion strategies among native populations in the Pacific Region, thereby

continuing its commitment to meet the rising challenge of obesity in our nation. The Secretary: “We know

that in order to win the future, we have to win the race to educate our children. That means that our kids

must be healthy so they can learn and thrive. Improving childhood nutrition remains a key priority of the

Obama Administration as we work to ensure our kids are ready to out-compete in an increasingly globalized

$25 million grant for the prevention of obesity


world.” This five year initiative will use a community-based participatory research approach that engages

communities to prioritize obesity prevention strategies. Researchers will work with the communities to de-

velop community needs assessments and establish sustainable nutrition and health-promoting programs.

Specifically, the team will identify specific environmental factors leading to childhood obesity in selected

schools and daycare facilities. Intervention strategies will be attuned to culturally-specific needs and goals,

and focus on physical activity, nutritional intake, and the amount of sleep children get each night. This is a

health psychologist’s dream.

The implications of the similar visions expressed by the leadership of these three federal Depart-

ments should be quite exciting for psychology, as long as our practitioners, scientists, and educators are ac-

tively engaged in shaping the specifics of the implementation strategies as they gradually unfold. The behav-

ioral sciences have much to contribute to these important national agendas and our visionaries have provid-

ed a solid scientifically-based foundation for their success. Involved we must be. Aloha.

Do something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn’t, do some-thing else. — FDR

Do you have a clinical review or grand-round case presentation? If so, we would like to consider it for publication in THE TABLET. Please contact Jim Calvert, Tablet editor, at [email protected] to discuss your ideas..


Glenn Ally, Psy.D., MP

President, APA Division 55

We are fast approaching the APA Annual Convention, which this year will be held in

Washington, DC. I would encourage all of my colleagues who plan to attend to include as

much Division 55 programming in your plans as possible. We have a great line up of pro-

grams that I believe will be of interest to anyone involved in the RxP movement.

Division 55 programming will start off Thursday, August 4th with an Invited Address, with

Dr. Elaine LeVine as Chair, discussing “Five Years Experience With Prescriptive Authority in

an Independent Practice.” Following that will be a presentation chaired by Dr. Mike Tilus regarding Prescrib-

ing Psychologists Working in the Federal Government. This offering should prove important to anyone inter-

esting in using psychopharm training in the federal system. Later that day, Dr. Alessandra Strada and I will

present a luncheon for graduate students and early career psychologists on How to Become a Prescribing

Psychologist. Subsequently, Dr. Steve Tulkin will chair a symposium on Psychologists who Prescribe in Prima-

ry Care and some of the challenges and experiences encountered in that setting.

On Friday, August 5th, Division 55 programming will start with a very interesting program exploring

Psychopharmacological Models of Forensic Practice co-chaired by Drs. Wagdy Loza and David Nussbaum.

Later, Dr. Alessandra Strada will chair a discussion on psychopharm in the treatment of patients with cancer,

“From Diagnosis to End-of-Life.” Rounding out Division 55 programming on Friday will be a discussion of Ad-

olescents Receiving Multidisciplinary, Residential Care.

Those interested in hearing the latest updates on state legislative issues dealing with RxP will not

want to miss the presentations co-chaired by Drs. Beth Rom-Rymer and Jeff Matranga. This will be present-

ed Saturday morning, August 6th. Next, Dr. Jacqueline Gray will chair a symposium on the Circle of Care-

Building an American Indian Research Team. Of course, we plan on having a fantastic poster session and

President’s Podium

Plan to Attend Division 55 Programs at the 2011 APA Convention

Glenn Ally


want to encourage everyone to drop by and learn about some of the on-going research related to psycho-

pharmacology.

After lunch on Saturday, I will be delivering an Invited Address on Psychopharmacology and Integrat-

ed Care with a look to the future. Later, at 5 p.m., Division 55 will hold our Business Meeting for members

followed by the Division 55 Social Hour and Awards Ceremony. You will not want to miss that!

Wrapping up our convention programming on Sunday, August 7th, we will hear an Invited Address

chaired by Dr. Anthony Marsella on the Pioneering Work of Dr. Martin Katz in the treatment of Depressive

Disorders.

I am truly excited about the line up of very important and informative convention programs that will

be available during our annual convention in Washington, DC. This will be an opportunity to not only learn,

but to network with colleagues who are interested in psychopharm, those who are teaching and training in

psychopharm, those who are using psychopharm training in their daily practices, and those who have pre-

scriptive authority. Please make plans to attend the convention and, by all means, plan to attend all of the

excellent Division 55 programming.

Oh, and make sure when you see Dr. Wyatt or Dr. Tulkin, please make sure you express your appreci-

ation for their tireless efforts in putting together this superb line up of Division 55 programming. Hope to see

everyone there.

President Glenn Ally

President Elect Kevin M. McGuinness

Past President Owen Nichols

Secretary Arlene Giordano

Treasurer Mary-Kathryn Black

Members at Large Jeff Matranga Kathleen M. McNamara Robert Younger

APA Council Reps Robert E. McGrath Beth Rom-Rymer

APAGS Rep Katherine Barteck

Division 55 — 2011 Board of Directors


Michael R. Butz, Ph.D. President and Acting Legislative Chair

Montana Psychological Association

Before I describe the events of our long legislative session in Montana, I must tell you that

there were a number of standout contributions offered by many, some who you may know

and others you may not know through the association.

Obviously, first of all Earl Sutherland and his colleagues at Indian Health Service were dili-

gent in their efforts to get our Prescriptive Authority bill through. In fact, in one meeting

the four of us actually convinced ‘the representative’ sent by Montana Medical Association

to support our bill – that’s how good they were! However, as a subsequent conversation I

had with this representative revealed, the Montana Medical Association was not con-

vinced, despite their designated representative’s feedback. This psychiatrist then got up and opposed the

bill at the next Committee Hearing.

Our Executive Director, Marti Wangen, and her crew of lobbyists, Sue Weingartner, Gary Spaeth and

Tom Rasmussen, did an outstanding job and their endurance and stalwart approach to the Prescriptive Au-

thority bill was heartfelt and a feat, in the face of daunting odds, that we will never be able to fully repay.

Then we have the collective efforts of our Board and those of George Watson, Chair of the Board of Psy-

chologists and our Federal Advocacy Coordinator here in Montana. Throughout, they supplied ongoing sup-

port and diligence in the face of a series of most challenging circumstances.

Among those outside of the state, we have the crew at APA, Katherine Nordal, Daniel Abrahamson,

Deborah Baker, Susie Lazaroff, and in short, CAPP. We have our colleagues from New Mexico, Elaine LeVine,

Mario Marquez and Robert Sherrill, as well as our colleagues from Alliant International University/California

School of Professional Psychology, Steven Tulkin and Morgan Sammons, among many others.

Legislative Updates

A Long Legislative Session in Montana…

Michael Butz


There will be those I can simply not get to, and for that I do apologize, but I cannot emphasize enough

how important it is for all of these groups and individuals to work together on an effort such as this, and, our

deep gratitude for it all.

For those of you not from Montana, here’s part of a brief we supplied to our legislature that outlines

the problems we are facing here in Montana, and literally why we took up Prescriptive Authority to begin

with in 2007. In fact, we did not even plan to introduce the bill then; we were asked to take up the matter by

one of our Senators:

Prescriptive Authority for Psychologists in Montana (Senate Bill 272)

What’s The Problem?

Provider Shortage. There is a critical shortage of qualified prescribers capable of providing appropri-

ate psychiatric medication treatments. The majority of psychotropic drugs are prescribed by primary

care physicians, physician assistants and advanced practice nurses who have limited mental health

training. Wait times to see a psychiatrist typically range from 3 months to a year. Many psychiatrist’s

practices are simply closed to new patients. Primary care providers are also becoming increasingly

scarce. Anyone in crisis, someone in danger a attempting suicide, having thoughts about harming

others or in need of immediate intervention, cannot wait. The most obvious example of the mental

health services crisis in Montana is that we have the second highest suicide rate (Alaska is first) in

the nation. This means that an average of one Montanan every other day is dying by suicide. Fifty

(50) Montanans will die by completing suicide during this legislative session.

Since that time, we had done our homework and prepared diligently for this Legislative Session; but

as many of you know Legislatures across the country in 2011 were not your ‘average’ Legislatures. In fact,

here in Montana we had 49 freshman Legislators out of a total of 150 Legislators, and the Legislature only

meets every other year.

As I stated at the State Leadership Conference (SLC) in mid-

March with some humility and deference to all those named above,

all of our hard work and preparation paid off as the bill came sailing

out of the Senate on a vote of 36-13 on Second Reading, and 35-15 on

Third Reading when we only needed 26 votes.

Earl Sutherland and I were in the gallery when the vote occurred, and the shift in the chamber was

palpable when it was being argued. Watching the board where the votes are recorded, it was stunning to

The RxP bill easily passed the Senate


see the vote count quickly reel past 26 and on to 36 the day we were there. As I wrote in my legislative

newsletter article for May, all of us made this happen.

The House, however, was a different matter. While we knew we had challenges, it was actually on

my plane flight back from SLC in the Denver Airport that I first became aware of how influential bald-faced

politics and power struggles were going to be in interfering with the progress of our bill. As it turns out, the

House became a place where politics and power supplanted the value of human life, literally. What I can tell

you bluntly is that what stymied this bill had nothing to do with the merits of the bill, nor the efforts of those

in opposition to the bill. It had to do with politics. Pow-

erful forces within the House literally held the bill hostage

for votes on another matter. It’s as plain as that.

While our collective efforts in the weeks following the vote on the Senate floor had prepared the bill

for a Hearing in the Business and Labor Committee, on March 14th the bill was voted out of that Committee

into the Human Services Committee by literally “one” vote. We felt that our work had been sufficient to get

the bill out of the Business and Labor Committee, but this political move thwarted all the work that had been

done on that front in the weeks and months before. We did appeal the bill’s movement into the Human Ser-

vices Committee but our appeal was denied.

There in the Human Services Committee, despite solid testimony on our behalf and a strangely ex-

tended period of opposition testimony which lasted twenty minutes long-

er, the bill was voted down 14 to 1. The oddity of these circumstances

was underscored by the fact that this vote has never been recorded on

the state’s legislative website and the audio recording of it was not avail-

able for weeks after the Hearing (typically available the next day).

Ms. Wangen, our Executive Director, and our lobbying crew said it wasn’t over yet and told me that

there was still work to be done, much to my surprise. Our House Sponsor, Representative Roberts, and oth-

ers felt that we could ‘blast’ the bill out of Committee. In Montana this meant that we would need a 3/5 th

vote on the House Floor in order to accomplish this task (roughly between 58 and 60 votes depending who

was in attendance), and that this would resurrect the bill out of the Human Services Committee onto the

House Floor. So, all of us went to work — Board, Members, etc.

We did what was viewed as a trial blast on the 30th of March to see who would vote in favor and who

would vote against it. Ultimately this motion failed on a vote 39 to 56. We recognized then the similarity of

the vote that put the bill in the Human Services Committee to begin with, and that in order to shift the track

of this vote we would have to work against the aforementioned powerful political interests in the House in

The RxP bill in the House was held hostage for votes on another matter

The RxP bill was moved to a new committee in the House and was promptly voted down


order to even get to a simple majority (49 to 51 votes depending who was in attendance).

After a great deal of work, we were ready for another blast, and while we had the commitment of

almost 60 Representatives, in the waning days of the 2011 Legislative Session it seemed that either these

Representatives were not good on follow-through or did not understand that the bill, which they had agreed

to vote for, was again up for vote. With a vote of 50 to 47 (4/18/11) we did achieve a simple majority, and

had this bill gone through conventional routes we would have been out of the House on such a vote.

But bald-face politics had sequestered the bill in the Human Services Committee where it would re-

main until the matter was confronted one more time with another blast that again achieved a simple majori-

ty (49 to 48) and fell short of the 3/5ths boost needed to exit it from the Committee on 4/20/11. Looking at

these voting results, what most will not realize is that across these blast attempts we had 62 Representatives

vote in favor of the bill, just not all on the same day! As maddening as this may be, one might argue there’s

something to be said for voting consistently.

It is important to understand that putting forth an effort such as this in the face of powerful political

forces, where certain Representatives make other Representatives ‘pay’ for voting their conscience, was diffi-

cult and tricky for all involved. In the face of these odds it was certainly commendable at the very least. In

addition, we were also confronting stiff and uncompromising opposition throughout, which spoke volumes

to the efforts of our supporters, members, Board, lobbyists, and our Executive Director. We got into this bill

to help save lives, reduce suffering, and provide treatment alternatives. This level of effort honored those

whom we meant to serve.

We still had a chance to “blast” the bill out of committee


What is disconcerting, to put it mildly, is that in the final analysis there was no viable safety argument

against Prescriptive Authority, and now our fellow Montanans are left without desperately needed services

with the second highest per capita suicide rate in the nation. Yet politics, power struggles, Montana’s NAMI

(unlike some other states), Montana Psychiatric Association, and the Montana Medical Association stood

against the bill — in effect, continuing to allow one Montanan to die every other day from a completed sui-

cide and thousands more to suffer because of lack of access to care. This, in my mind, is deplorable and vio-

lates the foundation of public service and a healthcare provider’s moral obligation.

I would hearten all of you within Division 55 to hold the lessons of our Legislative Session near, and to

continue to work conscientiously to improve the quality of care and hold entities like those above accounta-

ble for the suffering they continue to allow in favor of the politics of power. Again, our thanks go out to all

who assisted us in this effort and in our future efforts to get prescriptive authority passed in Montana.

New Jersey — In the last year New Jersey has made significant progress towards gaining prescriptive authori-

ty. The New Jersey Academy of Medical Psychologists with the full support of the New Jersey Psychological

Association has taken the lead in the RxP battle. RxP legislation, based upon the APA model legislation, has

been introduced in to the State Assembly and the State Senate. The bills A3745 and S2860 are identical. Our

lobbyist who has been instrumental in moving our legislation is experienced in scope of practice issues hav-

ing been successful in increasing the scope of practice of other medical professions. Our sponsors in both

houses are experienced politicians and familiar with the special challenges a scope of practice bill entails.

- Sean R. Evers, PhD, MSCP, Executive Board, New Jersey Academy of Medical Psychologists

Legislative Update—In Brief

Do you have a legislative update regarding RxP? If so, please send it to Jim Calvert, Tablet editor, at [email protected]. We would love to hear from you.


I was sitting in a continuing education workshop two weeks ago. The presenter was dis-

cussing his research and proudly declared that he was getting significant findings. He pre-

sented us with correlations of .21 and .23, which were significant because he used hundreds

of subjects for his study, and he presented these correlations as very important. He further

told us that these correlations meant that the variables he was discussing shared 21% and

23% of the variance with each other, respectively. As you no doubt recognize, correlations

of .21 and .23, while possibly statistically significant given a large subject pool, are rather

small and probably insignificant in “real world” terms. He also forgot (never knew?) that he

should have used r2 for shared variance, meaning that his variables shared about 4%-5% of

the variance with each other, a far cry from the 20+% he was claiming.

This workshop wasn’t about psychopharmacology, but it got me to thinking about the importance of

understanding research methods and statistics for psychopharmacology. It’s not that we need to be re-

search gurus, but it is important to understand research. Indeed, it is psychologists’ understanding of re-

search that puts us at the forefront of understanding the efficacy, or lack thereof, of medications. There is

no other clinical healthcare profession that requires as in-depth an understanding of research as psychology.

Think about how many courses you had to have on research methods and statistics in undergraduate and

graduate school. Even if you don’t conduct research now, this preparation helps you understand research

and make better clinical decisions for your patients.

In their article on “new” antidepressants (see the first article in this issue), Drs. Phelps and Carlat

highlight concerns with research on medications. They point out that recent research has shown that per-

sons on Oleptro showed an 11-point decrease on the HAM-D measure of depression, while those on placebo

showed a 9-point decrease. Statistically, that two-point spread is significant and indicates that Oleptro was

From the Editors

Statistical Significance, Effect Size, and Clinical Relevance for RxP

Jim Calvert

James D. Calvert, Ph.D., MSCP Editor, The Tablet


better than placebo at decreasing depression. However, as pointed out by Drs. Phelps and Carlat, the effect

size is quite small (d=0.28). Such a small effect size indicates that the “significant” difference is not very ro-

bust and is unlikely to be clinically significant. Because of concerns that many treatment studies are able to

show statistically significant differences that may not be clinically significant, more journals are now requiring

that researchers also publish the effect sizes since increasing sample size increases the chances of finding sig-

nificant differences but effect size computations are not affected by sample size.

But how many clinicians know the issues and concerns about finding a statistically significant differ-

ence but having a small effect size? Many healthcare professionals, including physicians, when presented

with information that Drug A is statistically superior to Drug B and/or placebos, would assume that Drug A is

clearly the drug to choose. They wouldn’t even think to consider effect size or other factors. And with many

medications showing questionable clinical significance over other drugs or even placebo (e.g., Oleptro,

Pristiq), understanding the research is more important than ever in being responsible prescribing profession-

als.

As the healthcare professionals with the most ex-

tensive training in research, psychologists need to

use their knowledge to connect pharmacology re-

search with clinical practice. Psychologists have

been leaders in developing guidelines for evidence-supported psychotherapy and therapeutic relationships,

and we have codified it by publishing these guidelines. However, for the most part, psychologists have been

relegated to the sideline when developing pharmacotherapy guidelines. As we move into the clinical realm

of pharmacotherapy, we need to be the vanguard of modern evidence-supported pharmacotherapy.

Treatment algorithms for pharmacotherapy, such as the Texas Implementation of Medication Algo-

rithms (TIMA), have helped guide medication selection by prescribing professionals. There are many other

guidelines and algorithms that are already published, but many are only loosely based on research findings

or are quickly becoming outdated. Our training in research puts us in an ideal position to develop pharma-

cotherapy guidelines based on the best research.

On a very practical level for RxP, developing drug treatment guidelines from within our profession

helps establish psychologists as the treatment experts for mental health. We can tell the public and legisla-

tors all day that we are knowledgeable about medications and capable of prescribing, and even though we

have demonstrated our capabilities, until we are perceived as experts in psychopharmacology, it will be diffi-

cult to convince those outside of psychology. Developing respected, research-based guidelines will help es-

tablish that expertise in the eyes of those outside of psychology.

We need to be the vanguard of modern evidence-supported pharmacotherapy


Nicholas Patapis, Psy.D., MACJ, MSCP

Associate Editor, The Tablet

“It’s poison I tell you, it’s poison!” These were the words said by a young George Bailey

(played by Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life) as he was being beaten by Old Man Gow-

er, a well-intentioned yet absent minded pharmacist who had mistakenly filled a child’s

prescription with cyanide. The process of filling prescriptions has changed significantly since

the 1930s as it was portrayed in the 1947 classic “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Today, medica-

tions are manufactured under pristine, sanitized conditions, packaged, sealed and sealed

again. Each prescription pill, tablet or capsule is required to be marked with identifying in-

formation that can be used to quickly ascertain the medication and the dosage by anyone almost anywhere.

For the purposes of this discussion let us assume that this process has eliminated all of the potential errors

that could occur between the writing of a prescription and what ultimately enters a patient’s body.

However, even with careful manufacturing, marking, and packaging, we still find that over 2,200,000

Americans made visits to the emergency room in 2009 even though they took the medication they were sup-

posed to take as they were directed. These patients had also taken one or more additional medications as

directed, leading to a negative drug-interaction (Drug Abuse Warning Network *2011+. National estimates of

drug-related emergency department visits: 2004-2009. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality,

SAMHSA: Rockville, MD). Outcomes for these patients ranged from treat-and-release to mortality, and these

numbers do not include patients who sought non-emergency care or did not seek care.

What can we do with this data? We can be

dismissive because there are too many possibilities

that could also account for the 2.2 million ER than

just drug-interactions, even though drug interactions played a role in these visits. We can get infuriated with

the prescriber who added the second, third, or fourth medication that caused the arrhythmia, hypotensive

crisis, hyperthermia, loss of consciousness, liver failure, stroke, and so-on and so forth. Or, we can beat

young George in the head until he shuts up and takes his medicine.

Of course, being dismissive, becoming infuriated, or blaming the victim doesn’t help solve the prob-

lem. And in some ways, the fact that these 2.2 million got help is better than the untold millions who have a

bad drug reaction and never tell anyone. The truth of the matter is that aside from the several thousand suc-

It’s Poison I Tell You, It’s Poison

Nick Patapis

We can beat young George in the head...


cessful malpractice claims and the handful of cases that were successfully prosecuted criminally, most clini-

cians will never know that their prescription seriously harmed a patient. In many cases the side effects are

mild and the patient never tells anyone or doesn’t even realize his problems were created by the drug inter-

actions. In some cases the side effects are chalked up to other problems besides drug interactions. As pre-

scribing psychologists it is incumbent on us to be aware of drug interactions so we can prescribe in order to

reduce negative interactions and recognize symptoms should interactions occur.

In the next issue of The Tablet we want to start a dialog on drug interactions. To help keep us fo-

cused, let’s start with Serotonin Syndrome (SS). Why SS? Because the muscle relaxant your patient’s ortho-

pedist prescribed is also a tricylcic SNRI (cyclobenzadrine). Several of your patients may be prescribed nar-

cotics analgesics such as fentanyl or meperidine and others tramadol or the NSAID indomethecine. In fact,

medications from methylene blue to anti-fungals and anti-virals are being implicated as the 2nd or 3rd culprits

in cases of severe and sometimes lethal SS.

All of the medications cited above were identified in PubMed (National Library of Medicine) using the

search terms “serotonin syndrome” and “drug interaction.” Each medication was posited to have been a

causative factor of SS in a case-study or case series. However, is there enough evidence in the peer-reviewed

literature to warrant concern? In the next issue we will look at the signs and symptoms to look for in tradi-

tional models of SS (e.g., MAOI-TCA interactions). We will also

discuss recent compelling arguments that SS is synonymous with

Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome.

We want your input about SS. Have you encountered SS in your practice? Do you have research on

SS? Please send comments or feedback to Nick Patapis, Psy.D. at [email protected].

Interested in Advertising in The Tablet?

Contact Jim Calvert, Tablet Editor, at [email protected]

for prices and advertising guidelines

Are SS and NMS synonymous?


The American Psychological Association Division Services Office/Div 55 750 First Street NE Washington DC 20002-4242

Non-profit Org.

US Postage

PAID

Permit No.6348

Washington DC

2011 ASAP Committee Chairs

ABPP Beth Rom-Rymer, Ph.D.

Awards Committee -

Canadian Psychology Committee Brian Bigelow, Ph.D.

CAPP Liaison Neal Morris, Ph.D.

Chapter Chairs Nancy Alford, Psy.D.

Continuing Education Director Warren Rice, Ph.D.

APA Convention Program of 2011 Massi Wyatt, Psy.D.

Early Career Psychologist E. Alessandra Strada, Ph.D.

Education and Training Committee Lenore Walker, Ph.D.

Evidence-Based Research Committee Beth Rom-Rymer, Ph.D.

Federal Advocacy Coordinator Gilbert Sanders, Ph.D.

Fellows Committee Ray Folen, Ph.D.

Gerontology Psychopharmacology Committee

Merla Arnold, Ph.D. Beth Rom-Rymer, Ph.D.

International Psychology Committee

Elizabeth Carll, Ph.D. Brian Bigelow, Ph.D.

Liaison to the Directors of Professional Affairs

Michael Schwarzchild, Ph.D.

Media Nina Tocci, Ph.D.

Membership Committee Massi Wyatt, Psy.D.

Listserv Monitor Gordon Herz, Ph.D.

Practice Guidelines Committee and Council Representative

Bob McGrath, Ph.D. RxP National Task Force

Michael Tilus, Psy.D.

Special Populations Committee Victor De La Cancela, Ph.D. (ethnic) Beth Rom-Rymer, PhD. (geriatric) George Kapalka, Ph.D. (pediatric)

Susan Patchin, Psy.D. (rural) Elaine Foster, Ph.D. (women)

S.W.A.A.T. Committee Owen Nichols, Psy.D.

Tablet

Editor - James D. Calvert, Ph.D. Associate Editor—Nicholas Patapis, Psy.D.

Webmaster David White

perspectives - apa divisions · alized anxiety disorder in 2009 and for chronic musculoskeletal...

Documents